Lets vote for New or Old point system.

[Baderz_Jas]

i like the old..it can sometiems last forever

Yeah, it's more exciting

 

[cxytdn]

The IBF should divide general meeting into two parts - "senate" and "House of Representatives".

"senate" - one vote for one association.
"House of Representatives" - the number of votes of one association accroding to it's the number of players within top 100 on world ranking. 0.2 vote for one players/pairs within top 100 of world ranking in five events.

 

[dropper]

The character of badminton as a sport is shaped partly (may be mostly) by the scoring system that it had employed for a long time. I think if we go to 21 point rally system it will change the character of the sport, and it is remain to be seen whether it is GOOD or BAD. My personal belief is that it will not be good . My vote is for the 15 x 3 .

 

[mongster]

Old system.

One of the joys of badminton is that the players' athleticism is tested to the limits. One has to be fit to keep up with even a decent player.

And what of those claims that badminton is more strenuous than tennis? That is going to get shot to hell.

 

[Arief]

old one for sure.

the games gets very exciting once it reacched 13-13 or even a deuce.. sometimes a game can get stuck at certain points, and for me it's very interesting also. the new system just doesn't fit to badminton.. and i'm afraid they will use it in interschool competition this year..

 

[Sephiroth]

Its pretty obvious that the new scoring system is just made for TV so other peeps can understand the game a bit better. At the end of the day the new one sucks and the old one RULZ !

 

[kanive]

3x15 v/s rally21 -- a direct comparison

I came across a complete video of the recent Commonwealth games bronze medal match between Chetan Anand and Aamir Ghaffar, which was played using the rally21 system. Chetan won the match 21-17, 18-21, 21-13. Because I had the full record of who served at what stage, I decided to see what the scores would have been like if they had played the Right Way[TM].

Of course, the way people play changes according to the game situation. How you play at the beginning of a game is different from how you play at the end. You can be far more forgiving of errors at 4-all than at 14-12. But nevertheless, I think the comparison is instructive.

Let's get the obvious point out of the way first -- Chetan would have won, regardless. But _how_ he would have won would be very different. I am appending the full record below, but some highlights:

1. Chetan "won" the 3-setter 11-7, 8-10, 10-3
(editorial comment -- each of them only half a game! both players had a chance to come back and win the games they lost, even the last one)

2. If we ignored the end of game and continued to keep score as though the game ended only at 15, then Chetan won "game 1" at 15-10 midway through the actual game 2. At the end of the actual game 2, Aamir was up 7-4, and extended his "lead" to 10-5 early in game 3, but Chetan fought back and when the match ended he was up 14-10.
(so essentially the rally21 system took a comfortable 2-setter and converted it to a 3-setter. How will it deal with a true 3-setter? I leave that as an exercise for the reader.)

3. The match ended on Aamir's serve.
(another editorial comment. UGH.)

4. the commentators felt each game was essentially in the bag as soon as one player pulled out to a lead of about 4. This happened at 16-12 (9-5), 13-17 (5-8), and 14-10 (6-3) in each of the games. Far too soon to write off the opponent, I would think. Especially in game 2, when Chetan was just beginning to make a charge that he would sustain through game 3 and win in a canter.

And here is the full record of the match. The * represents server:

Bronze medal playoff, Commonwealth Games 2006, Melbourne

Chetan Anand – Aamir Ghaffar

Game 1  

rally   regular
0-0     *0-0
1-0     *1-0
1-1     1-0*
2-1     *1-0
2-2     1-0*
2-3     1-1*
2-4     1-2*
3-4     *1-2
4-4     *2-2
4-5     2-2*
4-6     2-3*
5-6     *2-3
6-6     *3-3
6-7     3-3*
6-8     3-4*
7-8     *3-4
7-9     3-4*
8-9     *3-4
9-9     *4-4
9-10    4-4*
9-11    4-5*
10-11   *4-5
11-11   *5-5
12-11   *6-5
13-11   *7-5
13-12   7-5*
14-12   *7-5
15-12   *8-5
16-12   *9-5
16-13   9-5*
17-13   *9-5
18-13   *10-5
18-14   10-5*
19-14   *10-5
19-15   10-5*
19-16   10-6*
19-17   10-7*
20-17   *10-7
21-17   *11-7

Game 2

0-0     *0-0
0-1     0-0*
1-1     *0-0
1-2     0-0*
2-2     *0-0
2-3     0-0*
2-4     0-1*
2-5     0-2*
3-5     *0-2
3-6     0-2*
4-6     *0-2
4-7     0-2*
4-8     0-3*
5-8     *0-3
6-8     *1-3
7-8     *2-3
8-8     *3-3
8-9     3-3*
9-9     *3-3
9-10    3-3*
10-10   *3-3
11-10   *4-3
11-11   4-3*
11-12   4-4*
11-13   4-5*
12-13   *4-5
13-13   *5-5
13-14   5-5*
13-15   5-6*
13-16   5-7*
13-17   5-8*
13-18   5-9*
14-18   *5-9
15-18   *6-9
16-18   *7-9
16-19   7-9*
17-19   *7-9
18-19   *8-9
18-20   8-9*
18-21   8-10*

Game 3

0-0     0-0*
0-1     0-1*
1-1     *0-1
2-1     *1-1
2-2     1-1*
2-3     1-2*
2-4     1-3*
3-4     *1-3
3-5     1-3*
4-5     *1-3
5-5     *2-3
6-5     *3-3
7-5     *4-3
7-6     4-3*
8-6     *4-3
8-7     4-3*
9-7     *4-3
9-8     4-3*
10-8    *4-3
11-8    *5-3
11-9    5-3*
12-9    *5-3
12-10   5-3*
13-10   *5-3
14-10   *6-3
15-10   *7-3
16-10   *8-3
17-10   *9-3
17-11   9-3*
18-11   *9-3
18-12   9-3*
19-12   *9-3
20-12   *10-3
20-13   10-3*
21-13   *10-3

 

[dlp]

Nice analysis kanive!

While I think the new system is too short , I don't have a problem with scoring every point.

One big issue under 15 pt is lack of close games. While the commentators at the CWG liked to point out that once one player was in front a bit they would always win, I would suggest that this is mostly the case under the old system. I watched the first day of the All England live this year, lets look how many close games there were in the 1st 2 rounds of MS.

48 matches played (32+16)

8 won in 3 ends , 40 won in straight games

This gives 104 games to 15, of which only 4 were set. Of the 104 games only 24 were won to double figures (including the 4 with setting).

So only about 25% of the ends played in the first two rounds were "close" and only about 4% involved setting. Clearly the later stages would feature more tight matches but the bulk of the matches in the tournament it seems are predictable and pretty one sided! Under the rally point scoring we would see closer scorelines and more chance of upsets.

 

[seven]

More chances of upsets, but less chances of come-backs.

With rally scoring, the level difference has less influence and results are a lot more unpredictable, which means that the best player has less chance of winning than currently.

On the other hand, once a player has a significant lead in one game, he is 99% sure to win the game, so this kills the interest of the game.
The coolness and mental strength needed to wrap up a game is no more an important part of the game.

Anyway, nice stats kanive, this shows how bad rally scoring is!

 

[kanive]

Nice analysis kanive!

Thanks!

One big issue under 15 pt is lack of close games. While the commentators at the CWG liked to point out that once one player was in front a bit they would always win, I would suggest that this is mostly the case under the old system. I watched the first day of the All England live this year, lets look how many close games there were in the 1st 2 rounds of MS.

48 matches played (32+16)

8 won in 3 ends , 40 won in straight games

This gives 104 games to 15, of which only 4 were set. Of the 104 games only 24 were won to double figures (including the 4 with setting).

So only about 25% of the ends played in the first two rounds were "close" and only about 4% involved setting. Clearly the later stages would feature more tight matches but the bulk of the matches in the tournament it seems are predictable and pretty one sided! Under the rally point scoring we would see closer scorelines and more chance of upsets.

Well, you are talking about early round matches which are _designed_ to be one-sided, unlike a bronze medal playoff game between the losing semi-finalists. Perhaps a fairer comparison would be to take one of the All-England 3-setters and then convert them to what they would look like in the rally point system. What would the results look like then?

The thing with the rally21 is, if you are leading by a few after the mid-point, all you have to do is hang on and fight to a standstill, and you will win simply by attrition. The games are over long before they are over, in a manner of speaking. If people keep playing this (and I see no reason why they shouldn't -- just as long as it is not used in serious play and as long as it is not the only way to play), I am sure the tactics will evolve to make it look more like NBA basketball, and keep the game close until the end (at which time you would only need to watch the last 4 points!)

 

[Foyler]

I was playing a friend last night and we were playing the old rules. Following a series of unforced errors I found myself 13-6 down. Although I still made mistakes in the remainder of the game I was able to stop my opponent from making two points in a row and came through to win 15-13. Had we been playing the rally21 system then I would not have been able to make up the point deficit in time. I feel that the new system, although making scorelines more respectable for the losing player, takes away some of the excitement of matches. Hard fought comebacks and long service over stalemates are taken out of the equation removing some of most important elements for building tension and excitement in your viewing public.

 

[taneepak]

There was a recent research study to find out which is the most exciting game in the world. I think the source was from one of the top universities in the US. Their definition of 'exciting' is the unpredictability and upset element of the game. Their finding was that soccer was the most exciting and American football was the least exciting.
Now would you want to watch a game if you are almost 100% certain that A will beat B? Or what do you think of horse racing if there are no handicaps, which always means the best horse will win 100 times out of 100 races?

 

[kanive]

There was a recent research study to find out which is the most exciting game in the world. I think the source was from one of the top universities in the US. Their definition of 'exciting' is the unpredictability and upset element of the game. Their finding was that soccer was the most exciting and American football was the least exciting.

Really? Poor Commissioner Tagliabue, all those decades of effort to ensure parity, all that work to brainwash people into believing that on any given sunday, any team can beat any other -- all for naught? Soccer beats out Football in the US? No wonder he is retiring.

Now would you want to watch a game if you are almost 100% certain that A will beat B? Or what do you think of horse racing if there are no handicaps, which always means the best horse will win 100 times out of 100 races?

(a) if my team is on the winning end, of course I'll watch, boo yeah.
(b) nobody wins 100% of the time, that's why they play the game. are you saying that there can be no upsets unless people play rally21? come on. name for me the World Champions in Men's Doubles, please?
(c) or are you suggesting that all those sacrificial lambs that make up the numbers in the qualifier and the first round, why do they bother, they should just withdraw and save themselves the trouble of being defeated by the seeded players? because really, they have no chance at all, how often has the top seed been upset in the first round?

 

[taneepak]

Actually the research on the most exciting game was confined to soccer, baseball, basketball, hockey, and American football. The study was conducted by researchers at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Their researchers looked at 300.000 soccer, baseball, basketball, hockey and football games and found that the likehood for an upset was greatest in soccer. They defined exciting to be unpredictable. They have found that soccer is the most unpredictable sport, as it is likely that a team with a weak record can defeat a team with a better record. Followers of soccer can attest to this. Even mighty Chelsea was defeated by a weak relegation-threatened team.

 

[seven]

The difference with football (call it soccer if you like ) is that there is a very high possibility of come-back.
Matches like last year's champions league final are what makes it exciting.

The fact that a game is never finished before the last minute (or point) is what makes it so exciting

This is why serve scoring is so much more exciting than rally scoring.

 

[taneepak]

I wonder why the Los Alamos National Laboratory got involved in the reseach in finding out the most exciting sport? Shouldn't they concentrate on more exotic sciences?
Incidentally, the study found out that soccer is the most exciting sport, baseball second, ice hockey third, basketball fourth and way behind comes American football. These were based on 300.000 games played over the last 100 years.
However, in the last 10 years soccer is becoming more predictable whilst baseball is becoming less predictable. If the trend continues baseball might catch up with, and replace, soccer as the most exciting sport in the future. It is time for the soccer gurus and chieftains to start thinking about this. Maybe they should talk to Punch Gunalan about some rules changes!

 

[dlp]

I was playing a friend last night and we were playing the old rules. Following a series of unforced errors I found myself 13-6 down. Although I still made mistakes in the remainder of the game I was able to stop my opponent from making two points in a row and came through to win 15-13.

Overall you won fractionally more rallies than your opponent, under the new system the only difference is the limited number of rallies played, possibly realising that the match would be shorter you would have stopped making errors earlier and still won.

The much reported comeback under the old system is really incredibly rare amongst good level players. What does sometimes happen is that players choke when near the finishing line and throw the game away, well this is also likely under rally point scoring. If you are 20-18 up and go for a winner either you win or your opponent will serve to tie the scores at 19-20, thats pressure. Under the old system you are likely to be 14-11 up after a similar balance of play, either you get the winner or they merely get the serve, thats less pressure and if you have been winning up to then you are very likely to win the match.

If you watch the first day of the All England you notice that players make a really big effort at the start and often a lead of a few points is opened up by the first player to reach 8 and they go on to win the match comfortably. The exception is maybe when a player like Lin Dan or Lee CW coasts along knowing they can win the match at any point!

So I think the rally point in itself is no worse than the old system, its more logical, its just different to what we are used to. The real problem is the shortening of the matches, they should definately have gone for a 5 game format.

 

[seven]

2005 Champions League final was probably one of the most exciting football matches, and football has never been as popular as it is now.
FIFA would be plain idiots if they were to put silly rules in place now!!

On the other hand, baseball is still a very minor sport and has even been kicked out of the Olympics!!

So I don't see who could be convinced with these sort of arguments!

 

[seven]

dlp, your statement is mathematically wrong.
We have already proven why come-backs are much more possible under serve scoring than rally scoring, this is mathematical evidence!!

 

[kanive]

Overall you won fractionally more rallies than your opponent, under the new system the only difference is the limited number of rallies played, possibly realising that the match would be shorter you would have stopped making errors earlier and still won.

Easier said than done!

The much reported comeback under the old system is really incredibly rare amongst good level players. What does sometimes happen is that players choke when near the finishing line and throw the game away,

No, this is not true. It is incredibly rare when there is a big difference in level between the players, but that is as it should be.

well this is also likely under rally point scoring. If you are 20-18 up and go for a winner either you win or your opponent will serve to tie the scores at 19-20, thats pressure. Under the old system you are likely to be 14-11 up after a similar balance of play, either you get the winner or they merely get the serve, thats less pressure and if you have been winning up to then you are very likely to win the match.

This is incorrect. 20-18 in the rally system is more like 10-8 in the rally system. To me, stopping the game at that point is like saying "oh, Tolkien is too long, let's stop reading when they reach Rivendell."

If you watch the first day of the All England you notice that players make a really big effort at the start and often a lead of a few points is opened up by the first player to reach 8 and they go on to win the match comfortably. The exception is maybe when a player like Lin Dan or Lee CW coasts along knowing they can win the match at any point!

Well, what happens then when LCW meets Lin Dan?

So I think the rally point in itself is no worse than the old system, its more logical, its just different to what we are used to. The real problem is the shortening of the matches, they should definately have gone for a 5 game format.

I agree it is different and also that it is too short. Do not agree that it is in any sense more logical.